COCA-COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Vs. RAJ JACOB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.176 of 2015 filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 and 177 of 2015 filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated 28.05.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed consumer complaint bearing No.554 of 2014, filed by the complainant, qua the Opposite Parties, and directed them as under: -

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that on 30.07.2014, the complainant ordered five bottles of cold drink (Maaza), during one of the board meetings conducted by him, from Opposite Party No.3, which were consumed by the members attending the said meeting. It was stated that the complainant again ordered two bottles of the same cold drink. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 brought two cold drinks (Maaza) bottles, which were sealed and kept on the table. It was further stated that the complainant noted that one of the said bottles contained some housefly (musca domestica), floating therein. It was further stated that at the same time, the other members, who had consumed the cold drinks, started vomiting. It was further stated that the matter was reported to Opposite Party No.3 and complaint was also lodged with Opposite Party No.1 and 2. It was further stated that the complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 was also lodged with the Superintendent of Police, U.T., Chandigarh but it did not yield any result. It was further stated that the complainant gave a written complaint to the Food Safety Officer, Sector 16, Chandigarh, to verify the contents of the said bottle. It was further stated that on 22.08.2014, analysis report of said cold drinks (Maaza) was received by the Food Officer, wherein it was clearly held that "contents contain one dead fly. Hence, unsafe for human consumption". It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were selling the cold drinks to the general public, containing housefly, which was very harmful for their health.

(3.) It was further stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed, claiming various reliefs.